“Work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation.”—Alasdair Gray.

“If these are the early days of a better nation, there must be hope, and a hope of peace is as good as any, and far better than a hollow hoarding greed or the dry lies of an aweless god.”—Graydon Saunders

'I myself have never been able to find out precisely what Feminism is: I only know that people call me a Feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.'

This quotation from Rebecca West is quite familiar. I've seen it loads of times, often shortened by ommission of the opening phrases or the last three words. But until today I've never come across the context in which it was written: a socialist, trade unionist, internationalist polemic against an article by G. K Chesterton.

As I dislike intensely the condescension with which he slaps the working man on the back I rarely read his political articles. But last week I was sent “The New Witness” of October 30 which contained an article called “I Told You So.” There is no sentiment in that article which would not be a credit to an inhabitant of heaven: in fact it makes one desire to send Mr. Chesterton thither at once. The conclusions of that article are corruptingly foolish and wicked.

The subject is that recent incident in Dublin, when the strikers’ children who were being sent over to English or Belfast homes were assaulted by priests and “Hibernians,” and prevented from leaving the city. This incident seems full of quiet beauty to Mr. Chesterton.

Rebecca West would have been a formidable blogger.

8 Comments:

I can't find the original article by Chesterton online, which is a shame: but there are a lot of original documents herehttp://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Dublin_1913Strike_and_Lockouton the strike and Dora Montefiore's "Save the Dublin Kiddies" campaign.

The evacuation of children from British cities, as part of the WW2 expections of aerial bombing, didn't have the same "class-struggle" aspect. It wasn't about making it easier for those horrible striking workers.

You could argue that Douhetism--the idea that bombing cities into rubble could bring victory--was driven by some of the same thinking. It's a combination of a fear of one's own side's working class, and a dehumanisation of the enemy's. It maybe isn't an accident that it was reworked into "Shock and Awe" by the Americans. Though that was moderated by the knowledge of what really worked in WW2.

You could argue that Douhetism--the idea that bombing cities into rubble could bring victory--was driven by some of the same thinking. It's a combination of a fear of one's own side's working class, and a dehumanisation of the enemy's

From a point of view in the 1920s and 1930s, that approach doesn't seem so ridiculous. "When a war makes the enemy working class miserable, eventually they will rise up against the government and end the war" is a not entirely unfair description of what happened in Russia in 1917 and Germany in 1918.

The Shock and Awe doctrine is rather different; it's based on sudden dislocating precision attack rather than gradual immiseration of the civilian population.

Thanks for this. Quite a number of American left wing Catholics admire Chesterton, not as a writer of fiction (where I as a rather admire him myself) but as a political philosopher. And West captures nicely his smug anti-Semitic reactionary thinking on matters political on one issue, though I truly think it applies in general. As a Jew the anti-Semitism in the Father Brown stories stung me even when I first read them at the age of 11. But he also routinely falsifies history, attacks straw men, and substitutes vitupiration for analysis. Chesterton was extremely bright and good writer too. Shaw excoriated him for deliberate perversion of his gifts. Still enough people who share my views seem to find something to admire in Chesterton. I wish I could understand what it was.

To be as fair as I can (which perhaps is not very) I can think of particular cases where he got things right. Very shortly after the invention of the polygraph, he correctly noted that since it could not distinguish stress from lying and stress from other causes it was unlikely to every serve in practice as a lie detector, and he has been vindicated in that. I can think of one or another cases like that. But it seem like he got it wrong on almost every great issue of his lifetime. Nor do his methods seem to have much to recommend them. G.K. Chesterton was a great writer, and I think I can defend this against anyone who disagrees. But I don't see any value in him either as a political analyst nor as a philosopher. Maybe I'm missing something in those latter cases.

The Catholic television channel originating from Boston has an I-think-daily emission devoted to G.K. Chesterton or some idea of him...maybe I'll look at it, someday, but I'll look at their 3-D news show, for which see http://fugumble.com/2010/08/watch-colbert-stoked-over-3d-catholic-tv.php, first.

"The Shock and Awe doctrine is rather different; it's based on sudden dislocating precision attack rather than gradual immiseration of the civilian population."

I usually lurk here, but thought I'd offer my input on this, as a former military historian with the Department of National Defence. Actually, strategic air theory between the wars had plenty of room for "sudden dislocating precision attacks" - the theoretical basis for many technological developments (such as improved bombsights or faster bombers) was actually to deliver that crushing knockout blow.Slow immiseration of the population was never really the goal - it was merely what everyone settled for when that strategic knockout blow proved elusive.I'm afraid that "shock and awe" is nothing new. The whole basis for the RAF, the USAAF, and a strategic bomber force was the belief that one could defeat an enemy through terror, rather than through attrition.